Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

New submitter jespada writes "BBC News reports the Vietnamese Communist Party is approaching its internet image in a more sophisticated manner by hiring shill bloggers to argue its case. From the article: 'Hanoi Propaganda and Education Department head Ho Quang Loi said that the authorities had hired hundreds of so-called "internet polemists" in the fight against "online hostile forces." While the exact number of these activists is unknown, Mr Loi revealed that his organisation is running at least 400 online accounts and 20 microblogs. Regular visitors on popular social media networks in Vietnam such as Facebook have long noticed the existence of a number of pro-regime bloggers, who frequently post comments and articles supportive of the Communist Party. The bloggers also take part in online discussions, where they fiercely attack anybody who they see as critical of the regime.'"

Do you really think our western democratic political parties are not doing the exact same thing - even if they refer to them as marketing consultants or something similar?I have sure noticed that some topics on various news sites and forums attract *immediate* right-wing commentary denigrating whatever the article is about.I expect every political party out there is doing something similar. After all politics is more about appearance than substance these days.

I have sure noticed that some topics on various news sites and forums attract *immediate* right-wing commentary denigrating whatever the article is about.

Anything linked on drudge, instapundit, hot air or gateway pundit will attract nearly immediate commentary. That doesn't make a conspiracy. Then again, considering those sites are pretty much the only thing keeping left leaning news organizations alive these days by hits. I'd figure you'd be happy that we're out there and reading this stuff.

In the West, and especially the US, we have massive, pervasive astroturfing (and other kinds of black PR) advocating for the interests of private power. It's morally as bad as what the Communists are doing -- possibly worse, since they advocate policies which attack our fundamental rights and freedoms for private profit.

What is YOUR point? It is good to call out tactics like this no matter who is pulling them, whether its one kind of government or another, or a corporation. That Hanoi occupies so weak a PR position they need to hire people to attack critics says a lot about their strength as a country. Don't get me wrong, where we find these tactics being deployed at home - the very same conclusions apply. That shouldn't stop us from calling them out. I *would* stop short of saying everyone out there does the same, sans evidence.

Funny I did an experiment once on Huffington Post. One of the regular left-wing liberal posters have caught my eye: posting too fast and always too often. So good thing HP allows for the message history. That person was posting non-stop for 8 hours per day every day! A new post every five to ten minutes.I am more than positive that it was one of the "paid" organizations specifically designed to shape a public opinion, and this was their representative.

I agree with everything you're saying, except perhaps the implication that there is no real difference between the unelected communist government of Vietnam and western democracy. Hanoi's problem isn't just a "weak PR position". They're old school tyrants plain and simple. It's not like their people have the freedom to dissent or form opposition parties.

There is a world of difference here and it's important to acknowledge that.

You have to admit that there is a world of difference between western democracy, no matter how flawed, and they types of tyrannical regimes as seen in Vietnam. I wouldn't put them in the same category as Iran and North Korea as exporters of tyranny but the point still stands - opposition is not allowed.

The other thing is that you can't do is pretend that there will ever be a perfect government. Corrupt influences exist regardless of they kind of government you have. The best you can do is design the gove

There is a pretty strong argument that democracy has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with protecting the powerful from the effects of violent revolution.

Even if you don't believe in such a notion as inherent rights you can believe that giving people rights can make a violent revolution less likely. Thus, everyone's needs can be addressed. Unfortunately, it seems that the threat of revolution is not being taken sufficiently seriously.

Democracy is by definition a compromise. One thing it does is allow a compromise between the rich and powerful minority and the poor and weak majority, with the former giving up some of their money and power in the form of paying taxes towards society's greater good and allowing legislation preventing slavery and so on, and the latter agreeing not to string the former up from lampposts every few years when their lives become intolerable.

I agree with everything you're saying, except perhaps the implication that there is no real difference between the unelected communist government of Vietnam and western democracy. Hanoi's problem isn't just a "weak PR position". They're old school tyrants plain and simple. It's not like their people have the freedom to dissent or form opposition parties.

There is a world of difference here and it's important to acknowledge that.

If they have no freedom at all, why does the government waste time using shills to shout them down? There must be some sort of conversation going on involving government criticism, or else the government wouldn't feel they were being criticised.

And no, that is not a defence of the Vietnamese government or a statement that the Vietnamese people are as free as those in the West.

Actually it says a lot about their strength. They publicly admit to doing unlike all those others who lie about it. Who hide behind misleading names, who hire thousands of people to tell lies.

Of course the reality of the internet bites back. Are we up to a trillion pages yet? So many pages no matter how hard you try with your trolling, you disappear unless there is real long term interest. All you can really end up doing is driving interest in the subject not your particular viewpoint and that given time

Do you really think our western democratic political parties are not doing the exact same thing - even if they refer to them as marketing consultants or something similar?I have sure noticed that some topics on various news sites and forums attract *immediate* right-wing commentary denigrating whatever the article is about.I expect every political party out there is doing something similar. After all politics is more about appearance than substance these days.

I agree. It is obvious that western 'democracy' has a lot of money to fund people that are willing to go online to debate. The more money, the more people online.

Personally I think the Vietnamese Communist Party are very welcome on the internet. If they can argue their case for the public, they should be welcomed to do so, as this is the foundation of democracy. They will also read opposing views...

I really believe more communication is good for mankind. Memes will spread.

The problem is... the Communist Party ISN'T reading opposing views, they're hiring or employing people to write their message in response or as an author. They have talking points to get out, they aren't there to engage in a conversation with you, they're there to oppose you, and they will do so beyond any point where you would have made your case to someone with an open mind.

For all we know, the people they have doing their online shilling already know that they are handing out lies and half-truths. They

and they will do so beyond any point where you would have made your case to someone with an open mind.

Where are these people with an open mind? They certainly don't frequent internet comment areas. Heck, look at Slashdot - It's cause for celebration once every 6 months or so when someone actually says: "Yes, good point, you've changed my opinion." Other than that, it's just contradiction.

I admit, my postulated person with an open mind was strictly a theoretical case. Point being, there's no real up side to these sorts of astroturfers on a discussion site, even beyond the fact that everyone else is just talking at each other. One wonders why the commies are even bothering.

I like how you mention "right-wing commentary denigrating whatever the article is about" then make a half hearted effort to affect fairness with the whimpy "expect every political party out there is doing something similar" line.

Well, ok, what I posted was slanted. I am sure that left-wing political parties and interest groups are just as likely to be doing the same thing.The problem is I am left-wing generally, so I don't notice much of the commentary that I agree with or which seems sensible to me, as much as I notice the stuff that I *personally* consider to be right-wing batshit crazy.I was not however being even handed in my response, you are correct.

My point was that this article is pointing out the Vietnamese Communist party is using these tactics, and this seems to suggest an air of "oh how low-down and despicable" of them, when I am fairly certain that either our western political parties - or "advocacy groups" on their behalf are doing the same thing.

It seems particularly noticeable on CNN to me. Whenever Obama is mentioned, a ton of posts seem to try to redirect the readers to a different but unrelated topic, usually by massive trolling and racial insults. Now, perhaps this is just reflective of the readership on CNN, or the American people in general but it seems very consisten and very immediate.

Caveat: I am Canadian, and I am *absolutely* sure that our current Prime Minister's Conservative party would do this, they have already been caught cheating with their finances in multiple ridings and elections, and we had a huge robo-call scandal in the last election where people pretending to represent the Liberal Part (that's middle of the road politically mind you, not left wing) and the New Democratic party (they are also pretty middle of the road these days but used to be more left-wing) called voters to tell them that their poling stations had moved (to addresses that didn't exist, were the wrong location etc), deliberately trying to ensure that those supporting their opposition parties had less chances to vote. It all got blamed on 1 unauthorized staffer of course, but since it involved thousands of phone calls this seems rather unlikely.

Astroturfing articles that are critical of your political belief seems almost guaranteed as a tactic these days, here in the west, not just in foreign communist countries.

Your point is well taken in regard to trying to restore even handedness to your posting, but I'm interested in why the response to a discovery that the Vietnamese are astroturfing means that we need to point out that everyone else does.

If astroturfing is bad, it seems to me that we should be decrying that Vietnam is doing it. When an article comes out that the Republicans, Democrats, Tories, Labour, etc are doing it, we should decry their use of it. To me, pointing out that other people do it comes off as

As far as I'm concerned, as an American, the entire point of reading the article is to give me a new perspective on my leaders. I have no context for how this affects Vietnam or it's people. I can make brash assumptions about Vietnam's Orwellian society or whatever, but I have no skin in that game. I do not keep track of the pros and cons of world governments, especially not one as unimportant to my life as Vietnam.

Where this does affect me is allowing my eyes to open to similar abuses around me. Wher

well.. it depends how you're paid and where you're shilling and how if it's equivalent to this.

though in the west you'll find plenty of free shills - after all special interest groups etc have normal people supporting their goals too usually, sometimes they're stupid eeeediots but they're people too. and even in russia Putin has plenty of real fans who think he's doing excellent job and will beat up anyone who thinks otherwise, without getting paid. these are legitimate opinions. lot's of employees of compa

Not just political parties. Many major tech companies have a large presence on Reddit and other forums to quickly "influence" potential adverse or advantageous posts. When there are millions of viewers, it's worth a lot of money to sway opinions.

Socialist Republic of Vietnam has no need for so called propaganda campaign. Evidence of lies from Western capitalist press. Socialist Republic of Vietnam for peace and friendship for all peoples but above all for workers. Slashdot.com part of technics to attack Socialist Republic of Vietnam in public opinion courts.

Microsoft and their sleazy PR outfit invented 'astroturfing' and used it with great effectiveness to advance their agenda. It's only to be expected, then, that communist governments would turn to astroturfing as a more-effective form of the propaganda they have always relied on as a substitute for truth, honesty, and fairness.

What's newsworthy about this post is not that various states engage in internet propaganda (through bloggers/commenters), but that Vietnam is the first country to be transparent enough to admit it. Hell, propaganda always existed, Internet is just another medium.

If you have spare time, go to the Wikipedia page of your favorite (however defined) corporation. Click "View history". Find the top five contributors and do a WHOIS on their IPs. Now, compare this to the locations of offices owned by your favorite corporation. It can be rather entertaining.

I didn't say it was either unusual or unexpected; I said it was entertaining. Regardless, the criticism you offer applies equally well to TFA as well. That doesn't make how they do it uninteresting.

Let me give an example to illustrate. I once looked up a certain Fortune 500 company on Wikipedia. I'll call it Jonesing for Capital Industries, or JCI for short, to protect its identity. (Full disclosure: I looked at their page quite some time ago, and it looks like much of it has been changed since then--who knows what has transpired since?) Back when I checked JCI's page, most of it clearly read as corporate propaganda, the kind of thing that isn't remotely unusual or unexpected. Frankly, I don't really find the encomia corporations write about themselves all that troubling. They're perfectly transparent and, as you say, what else would you expect? What was unexpected was the section that appeared on the page about controversies JCI had been involved in. Not that I didn't know the corporation had been involved in controversies--most have--but what impressed me was that this wasn't removed wholesale from their Wiki page.

As I looked more carefully, however, I noticed that anytime a claim was made against them an edit would be made by the same anon IP, or another IP from the same town. The edit, if I recall correctly, would come during regular working hours. Most often it wouldn't remove note of the controversy (many of these things are too public) but would change the wording around. Problems with activities the company engaged in became things people said the company did. Simple factual claims in the indicative were made into hearsay. An article cited against the company would be accompanied by another article cited in favor of the company as though both claims were equal. Of course, it's always good to give both sides of the story but that's not quite what was going on here. What was going on is a journalistic tactic/fallacy called false equivalence. It's often employed to great effect by climate change skeptics.

In my view, this is quite interesting because it makes us aware some broader risks with Wikipedia's model. Companies have full-time staff to edit their pages and control their image. But because of Wikipedia's neutrality standards, equivalence, even if it is false, will always be favored over journalistic discrimination. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia should do otherwise--it isn't a newspaper editorial board after all and those who write for it aren't journalists. What I do suggest, however, is that we pay attention to these seemingly mundane facts, not merely dismissing them as expected, and use them to encourage ourselves to look critically even when we're presented with 'two sides' to a story.

To be specific, I am referring to the fact that both Apple and Microsoft employ astroturfers to post material favorable to themselves on community sites. Just like morally bankrupt communists. Do you wish me to be more specific? (Just show up with some more spinmod points and I will oblige.)

To be specific, I am referring to the fact that both Apple and Microsoft employ astroturfers to post material favorable to themselves on community sites. Just like morally bankrupt communists. Do you wish me to be more specific? (Just show up with some more spinmod points and I will oblige.)

Well, that's because Android is a thorn in the side of Apple, and Android on a desktop scares the crap out of Microsoft.

I love that there is such a thing as the head of the Hanoi Propaganda and Education Department. That makes my day.
Don't they know you never actually name your propaganda department the Propaganda Department? I'm pretty sure it was covered in Running a Dictatorship of the Proletariat for Dummies.